Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

    What do you think?

    Stern: Bennett made 'good faith' effort to keep Sonics in Seattle

    Associated Press




    Updated: April 14, 2008, 2:34 PM


    OKLAHOMA CITY -- Despite the release of e-mails that SuperSonics owner Clay Bennett exchanged last year with partners about moving the team to Oklahoma City, NBA commissioner David Stern says he is convinced Bennett made a good-faith effort to keep the team in Seattle.



    Bennett and ownership partners Aubrey McClendon and Tom Ward exchanged e-mails in April 2007 in which they discussed whether there was any way to avoid further "lame duck" seasons in Seattle before the team could be relocated.


    Bennett, who had promised to negotiate with Seattle for a full year before deciding whether to move the Sonics, responded: "I am a man possessed! Will do everything we can. Thanks for hanging with me boys."


    "I haven't studied them but my sense of it was that Clay, as the managing partner and the driving force of the group, was operating in good faith under the agreement that had been made with [previous owner] Howard Schultz," Stern said on a conference call Monday. "His straight and narrow path may not have been shared by all of his partners in their views, but Clay was the one that was making policy for the partnership."


    Stern fined McClendon $250,000 last August after he told an Oklahoma City newspaper that "we didn't buy the team to keep it in Seattle; we hoped to come here." The e-mails released last week as part of the city of Seattle's efforts to enforce the SuperSonics' lease at KeyArena shed further light on the ownership group's thought process prior to Bennett's self-enforced Oct. 31 deadline to determine the team's eventual home.


    After purchasing the team from Schultz in July 2006, Bennett promised to spend one full year after the purchase was approved to seek a viable home for the Sonics in Seattle. The NBA approved the sale of the Sonics in October 2006.


    Stern repeatedly has said that Seattle's KeyArena is not a suitable home for the Sonics, and rejected a recent attempt led by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to renovate the arena to keep the team in Seattle. That effort subsequently fell apart when it wasn't backed by the city or the state legislature.


    Stern said it's too late at this point to seek other owners who would keep the Sonics in the city where they've played the past 41 years.


    "I think it's fair to say that extraordinary efforts were made to seek ownership interests when Howard sold the team, including from people who became involved in the effort -- the recently unsuccessful effort -- to get the state to extend the sales tax for the purposes of retiring the arena debt," Stern said.


    "It happened already. There was no one who was interested in buying the team, including the very people who stepped forward at the last minute."
    NBA owners will vote Friday on Bennett's proposed relocation to Oklahoma City. A subcommittee of three owners visited Oklahoma City last month and recommended league approval.


    During that visit, Stern suggested that Oklahoma City -- when combined with the presence of Tulsa less than 100 miles away -- could be a viable market even though Seattle has a higher population and television audience. On Monday, he downplayed Seattle's role as an entry into Asia.
    "I would say that we don't ever like to leave a city," Stern said. "We don't like to leave a city as robust as Seattle, but the Asian cities that we're tending to focus more on have names like Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong and Guangzhou.


    "It's disheartening simply to leave the city, as it would be to leave any city."


    A June trial is scheduled concerning the city of Seattle's lawsuit to enforce the lease and keep the team at KeyArena through 2010.
    54
    I think they should vote yes.
    31.48%
    17
    I think they should vote no.
    68.52%
    37

    The poll is expired.


  • #2
    Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

    The unfortunate reality in sports today revolves around socialized stadium building. Seattle doesn't strike me as a strong haven for sports, and definately doesn't seem like a city that can support MLB, NBA, and NFL. Yes, I know it is a very large city, but it seems to me to be made up of latte sipping type people who would rather have their tax dollars spent on something other than an NBA stadium. I'm not saying that's wrong, that's their own prerogative.

    The people of OKC went out and supported a mediocre Hornets team very well a couple of years ago, and from what I've read despite the city's crappy reputation to people like me the players enjoyed it there relatively well. Rather than playing second fiddle to the Seahawks, the Sonics would be the #1 ticket in town and I think the fans would appreciate them more than Seattle fans do.

    So I tend to fall on the side of supporting the move to OKC.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

      I'm agin' it because the flying fickle finger of fate points to Indy next.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

        Call me fickle but wouldn't most owners vote to let them move just in case some time down the road when they can't get an arena deal they want they can move too?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          I'm agin' it because the flying fickle finger of fate points to Indy next.
          Well, the main reason why most of these teams have moved is because that the citites that they are located in are such small markets or they cannot get legislature to pass for a new stadium/arena.

          I don't think that the Pacers will leave any time soon...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

            Doesn't matter to me whether they remain in Seattle or move to OKC...just as long as they stay in the Western Conference.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

              Originally posted by dcpacersfan View Post
              The unfortunate reality in sports today revolves around socialized stadium building. Seattle doesn't strike me as a strong haven for sports, and definately doesn't seem like a city that can support MLB, NBA, and NFL. Yes, I know it is a very large city, but it seems to me to be made up of latte sipping type people who would rather have their tax dollars spent on something other than an NBA stadium. I'm not saying that's wrong, that's their own prerogative.

              The people of OKC went out and supported a mediocre Hornets team very well a couple of years ago, and from what I've read despite the city's crappy reputation to people like me the players enjoyed it there relatively well. Rather than playing second fiddle to the Seahawks, the Sonics would be the #1 ticket in town and I think the fans would appreciate them more than Seattle fans do.

              So I tend to fall on the side of supporting the move to OKC.

              I think Seattle is very much capable of supporting 3 major sports. I live in Vancouver, BC so am only a 2-3 hour drive away from Seattle. I've been to numerous Sonics games this year (including last night's win over Dallas) and the fan support has been superb.

              Keep in mind that this Sonics team is pretty much certain to leave, if not this year, then next. The attendance is still very good (from what I've seen) and the crowd still gets into the games. This says a lot when they know that this team will be gone soon.

              What wasn't mentioned in the article along with the reference to interest in Asia for having a team in Seattle is that this exposure also trickles up to Canada. The only people who will care about the team in Oklahoma City are the people of Oklahoma City.

              The reference has been made to the great attendances they had when the Hornets played there. That could simply be attributable to it being something they don't normally have. It was a novelty. They could have good crowds in OKC, but merchandising sales will be way down in comparison to what it would be with the team being in Seattle.

              When it comes down to it, Clay Bennett has the right to move the team if he wants to - it's his team, but I think he's lacked a lot of morals and will be losing a great fan-base in Seattle. I think it's a bad move for him both morally and financially.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                I voted yes considering that there was time and a chance for someone local to Seattle to step up and buy the franchise before Clay Bennett. Don't get me wrong... I still have a hard time believing Stern when he says that "Key Arena is not a suitable home for the Sonics", considering it was rebuilt in '95.

                But at the end of the day in major league professional sports, you have to pay to play! Just like Indianapolis is "pony-ing" up for the Colts, Seattle probably needed to do the same for the Sonics if they were serious about keeping them around. I know that subsidizing millionairs sucks and spending that kind of money on sports sucks... But, the bottom line is, if you don't...Another city will be very glad to do so!! That referndum in OKC during the last election that would make improvements at the Ford Center and build an NBA practice facility passed in a land slide.
                ...Still "flying casual"
                @roaminggnome74

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                  I would say they will back this move if for no other reason than what Grace gave. Seattle could certainly be worthy of keeping the team and I think OKC is also worthy. What they did for the Hornets is one for the ages. Can you imagine what it would have been like if the Hornets were to have played in Oklahoma City this year. I'm happy for those fans just as I am sad for the fans of Seattle.
                  The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                    I voted yes. I lived in OKC for 15 years (1983-1998) and it is an avid sports town without a team.

                    They have Oklahoma and Oklahoma State nearby but that is it.

                    They will be able to pull from Tulsa and southern Kansas.

                    They have rebuilt the downtown area including a riverwalk and lots of resturants.

                    I think it is a good move.

                    I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                      Why can't they just wait until the contract's up? It's just a year.
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                        Originally posted by AesopRockOn View Post
                        Why can't they just wait until the contract's up? It's just a year.
                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance

                        It'll probably be half that next year.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance

                          It'll probably be half that next year.
                          And coming in dead last yooooouuuuuuurrrrrrrrr INDIANA PACERS!!!!!!!!!!


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                            It's nice to see Philly made such an upswing. At one point they had a lower percentage than us.
                            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: How do you want the Simon's to vote on the Sonic's to OKlahoma City relocation?

                              Tear in my eye...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X